I've seen Phil G in action online. He is cold and callous to those of us who know the truth - that vaccines cause Autism. Today I found out that John Best has been found guilty of defamation. I saw that The Informer thinks that he lied in court and I think he's right. But we have no proof. The decision that Phil G linked was a hatchet job on John. It was totally unfair, but now it's recorded in law! I saw John said Phil was guilty of copyright violation and that I don't know about because I don't know what the court saw.
Only because it's recorded in law, I have to back down from my last entry and delete it, and just to be safe the other entry as well. The law at the moment says that John was completely wrong about Phil. I don't believe it like I said, but I can't say anything because I'll be in trouble.
I don't even believe the alleged decision came from a real judge. I doubt any judge could be that stupid. I was amazed to see Phil claim that my Hating Autism blog was written by someone else. That's simply not true. I wouldn't worry about Phil. He would be easy to beat in person. You could probably provoke him to attack the judge if you were in court with him.
ReplyDeleteBest, that was an error by His Honour that we (my barrister and I) are working to correct. He mixed up Hating Autism with Joeker's Hating Autism Discussion blog. A few other errors have already been corrected.
ReplyDeleteJust one more point - on the issue of copyright (again);
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s41.html
Both say the same thing. That copying for the purpose of review/criticism is FAIR USE. That's why I said nothing when you copied my blog.
Nitwit, Why would your lawyer be discussing a case at all if you allegedly won it? Some conclusions that this alleged judge drew could only be formed in the simple mind of a severely deranged mental case.
ReplyDeleteThat's dangerous talk, JB! Calling a judge "alleged" and a decision "alleged"? I wonder if this is Contempt of Court?
ReplyDeletehttp://scv2.webcentral.com.au/vsc/
Listed fourth down. A FORMAL court decision. Alleged my ass! It's real, JB!
The decision I saw said that Phil lost. He can't have my blogs removed.
ReplyDeleteOh yes I can!
ReplyDeleteEven if you could, Phil, you'd still be a severely deranged mental case and I can write whatever I want about you or any other jackass who lies about autism.
ReplyDeleteExcept what that decision said was defamatory, John. I know you don't believe it exists, but I wouldn't be taking any chances either way. Stick to the deranged stuff and you'll be fine. We know that's true at least.
ReplyDeleteNo it's not, Dis-In! It's a lie! The only reason the court didn't mention it is because it's not defamation. Flaming dip!
ReplyDeleteStick to the truth. There's enough of that.
ReplyDelete